The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (misunderstanding of the legal principles on the surcharge and sentencing: 16.55 million won and simple marina charge that the Defendant paid to H, who is an accomplice, should be deducted from the surcharge.

The sentence of the court below is too heavy.

B. Defendant B (unfair sentencing): The lower court’s sentence is too heavy.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misapprehension of the legal principles on the additional collection charges by Defendant A 1) As to whether to deduct the amount paid by the Defendant to H, the expenses incurred by the Defendant in the course of engaging in the act of arranging sexual traffic, such as health room, employee salary, and other expenses, are nothing more than a method to consume the money and goods acquired in return for the act of arranging sexual traffic or to justify his/her act (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Do1859, Apr. 11, 2013). Accordingly, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s evidence duly adopted and examined reveals that H managed the business under the delegation of the Defendant, such as managing the reservation as the chief office, and deeming an employee interview, H reported the profits to the Defendant every day, and delivered the total amount of the Defendant’s profits to the account by means of transfer of the account and cash payment, and the Defendant received a certain amount to H every month.

In the above facts, the defendant's profits from operating this business in the prosecutor's office "61,808,100 won (the additional collection charge in this case).

However, the above amount is the amount before paying the monthly salary and the operating expenses of the store to H and B.

In addition to the fact that the Defendant stated “,” the Defendant paid the amount to H as wages to employees, not for the allocation of profits.

It is reasonable to see that it constitutes expenses incurred by the defendant in the course of arranging sexual traffic, and it is not deducted from the additional collection amount.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

(ii)..